Also speaking

I call to order the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We are here today to look at the next 15 items in the order of precedence. You have a chart before you, as well as a packet of the entire group of motions and bills. I'm going to suggest that we work through them numerically, one at a time, ask our analyst to make a brief comment about each one as we go, and then proceed to vote on each one individually.

This motion will call upon the government to recognize the contributions of the baby boomers in building Canada through various measures. The motion does not seem to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to clearly violate the Constitution. There has been no similar motion voted in the House of Commons, and there's no government motion currently on the order paper that is substantially similar to this motion.

This motion will express the opinion that the Governor General's salary be subjected to the Income Tax Act, and calls upon the government to amend the Income Tax Act in that respect.

This motion is not outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to clearly violate the Constitution. There are no motions substantially similar that have been voted on in the current session, and there's no government motion on the same subject currently on the order paper.

It's one of these things that deals with a constitutional convention. I know in Britain the issue of whether the Queen's salary should be taxed is something that has gone back and forth. I think currently, it is taxed. If memory serves, this was a subject of debate in 1992. Of course in Britain, they don't actually have this division between a written constitution and constitutional conventions, and I must say, I'm actually a little uncomfortable moving forward on this without having a little bit of research.

Would it be acceptable if we just set this one aside? I'm not saying we vote against it. I'd just like to set it aside until we can get some further information.

If it is the will of the committee, I could provide further information on this subject.

The salary of the Governor General is not subject to the Income Tax Act, pursuant to a specific exception found in the Income Tax Act, paragraph 81(1)(n), and for the benefit of the subcommittee I could read that section.81(1) There shall not be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year,...(n) income from the office of Governor General of Canada;

This is the exemption that was put in place, I think it was in 1917 when the first incarnation of the Income Tax Act was adopted, in order to exempt the Governor General's salary from income tax.

We are at the motion stage, so to delete the exemption, the government will have to introduce legislation. We're not at the implementation stage yet, but probably if the government wants to follow up on this motion, if adopted, the government will propose to repeal this exemption.

I just want to remind the committee again of the four criteria this committee has generally operated under. If we could proceed along that line and allow the debate to continue in the House, unless there's some constitutional or other matter, that would be my position, but I'm at the will of the committee.

As am I. I don't really necessarily want to see this bill.... It probably could benefit from debate in the House. I don't necessarily see that we should be blocking it here, but I'm open to further argument.

I see the point. We figure these things out in the course of debates. I'm not sure that putting the statutory exemption in was the only criteria. I actually didn't know that statutory exemption existed. But had there been a bill to remove the exemption—I get that. The question of whether we are debating something that actually is....

We're adopting a motion that leads us into the position of taking a position on something that might be in violation of a convention, or a position that's actually outside of the jurisdiction of the House. That's what I'm struggling with. But I guess one could then vote against it on that basis when it comes up for a vote.

This motion recognizes that the provision of access to adequate housing is a fundamental human right. It involves establishing a national housing strategy designed to protect, promote, or fulfill the right to secure, adequate, affordable, and accessible housing.

This motion doesn't appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution, including the charter. There's no motion substantially similar to this motion that has been voted on in the current session. There's no government motion currently on the order paper on the same subject.

This motion calls upon the government to put in place various measures designed to promote and maintain healthy weight for children and youth. This motion does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to clearly violate the Constitution. It is not similar to a motion already voted on in the current session. It does not appear to be substantially similar to a government motion currently on the order paper.

This motion calls upon the government to recognize the responsibility of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces with regard to the contamination of the groundwater in the residential area of Canadian Forces Base Valcartier, and residential areas of the municipality of Shannon.

This motion does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to clearly violate the Constitution. It is not substantially the same as a motion already voted on in the current session. It is not the same as a government motion already on the order paper.